First published online November 28, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 3908-3914 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.021345
The functional significance of the lower temporal bar in Sphenodon punctatus
Vicky Schaerlaeken1,*,
Anthony Herrel1,2,
Peter Aerts1 and
Callum F. Ross3
1 Laboratory of Functional Morphology, Department of Biology, University of
Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium
2 Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26
Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
3 Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago,
IL 60637, USA

View larger version (65K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Lateral view on the skull of Sphenodon punctatus (top) and
Plocederma stellio (bottom). Note how the major difference between
the two skulls is the absence of the lower temporal bar in P.
stellio. Arrow indicates the lower temporal bar in S.
punctatus.
|
|

View larger version (4K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Graph illustrating the mass of the external adductor for a given cranial
length in lizards from three different families (agamids, scincids and geckos;
closed circles) and Sphenodon punctatus (open circles). Note how
S. punctatus has a significantly smaller jaw adductor for its cranial
length than the lizards examined. Data include both masses from Gorniak et al.
(Gorniak et al., 1982 ) and
newly obtained data by dissection of an adult male specimen.
|
|

View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Graph illustrating the differences in bite force between Sphenodon
punctatus (closed circles) and agamid lizards (open circles). Note how
bite forces are significantly lower in S. punctatus compared with
agamid lizards.
|
|

View larger version (4K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Bar diagram illustrating differences in feeding behavior between
Sphenodon punctatus (closed bar) and an agamid lizard (Plocederma
stellio; open bar) feeding on the same prey (mealworm). Note how both the
duration of a single transport cycle (TCD, transport cycle duration;
F1,28=25.29; P<0.01) and the transport stage
duration (TSD; F1,28=6.01; P=0.02) are
significantly larger in S. punctatus. The duration of a single
swallowing cycle (SCD) and the duration of the swallowing stage (SSD), by
contrast, are not different between species (P>0.5).
|
|

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Representative gape profile of prey transport in Sphenodon
punctatus and Pogona vitticeps eating a mealworm. Note how the
transport stage duration in S. punctatus is significantly longer than
in P. vitticeps (1440 vs 237 m s–1,
respectively) and consists of a greater number of cycles. Note also the
difference in the scale of the two x-axes. Data for P.
vitticeps were taken from Schaerlaeken et al.
(Schaerlaeken et al.,
2008 ).
|
|

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter What's this?
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008